DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                      Consumer Complaint No.499 of 2016                                                   Date of institution: 22.08.2016                                                  Date of decision   :  16.03.2017

Gursharan Singh Kang son of Joginder Singh Kang, resident of H.No.49, Phase-IV, SAS Nagar (Mohali) Punjab 160059.

                                     ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

M/s. Xerion Retail (P) Limited, Registered Office: Plot No.109, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon 122015, Haryana through its Managing Director/Authorised signatory/Chief Executive Officer.

                                                               ………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Sections 12 of

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President 

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Complainant in person.

                Opposite Party ex-parte.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Gursharan Singh Kang has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant on 30.06.2016 placed an online order on the site ‘Jabong.com’ for purchase of one pair of City Bounce Black Formal Shoes (Hush Puppies) from the OP by paying Rs.2446.61. The shoes were delivered to the complainant at his residence vide invoice dated 30.06.2016.   The Maximum Retail Price as printed on the box of the shoes was Rs.3,699/- which was inclusive of all taxes.  The OP had given a discount @ 30% on the MRP of the shoes. Thus, after discount the price of the shoes came to be Rs.2,589/-. Another special discount of 10% to the tune of Rs.258.90 was also offered to the complainant on the discounted price, bringing the price of the shoes to Rs.2330.10.   However, the OP while issuing sale invoice charged Rs. 116.51 on the price of Rs.2330.10 and charged a total amount of Rs.2446.61 from the complainant. On receipt of the shoes, the complainant on 26.07.2016 sent e-mail to Jabong requesting it to refund the amount of Rs.116.51 charged on account of taxes as the MRP was inclusive of all taxes. The OP vide e-mail dated 30.07.2016 refused to refund the amount of Rs.116.51 charged on account of taxes.   Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to refund him extra amount of taxes charged to the tune of Rs.116.51 to pay him Rs.50,000/- for physical and mental harassment and litigation expenses and cost of Rs.15,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

3.             As per the India Post Tracking report, the notice sent to the OP and was delivered upon it on 01.10.2016. However, none appeared for it and the OP was thus proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 09.11.2016.

4.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; copies of invoice Ex.C-1; price tags Ex.C-2 and order confirmation Ex.C-3.

5.             The complainant has argued that the price tag Ex.C-2 show that the price of the shoes were inclusive of all taxes. However, the OP at the time of issuance of invoice Ex.C-3 again charged taxes to the tune of Rs.116.51 on the discounted price and this act on the part of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  

6.             After hearing the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence and the written as well as oral submissions, it is established from the material placed on record tag Ex.C-2 that the price of the shoes was inclusive of all taxes. However, the OPs again charged taxes to the tune of Rs.116.51 while issuing invoice Ex.C-3.  The complainant vide his e-mail dated 26.07.2016 requested the OP to refund this amount but the OP refused to the request of the complainant vide e-mail dated 30.07.2016 Ex.C-4. In our view when MRP is inclusive of all taxes then other taxes cannot be charged separately. Here we are fortified by the similar view taken by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in Appeal No.3723 of 2011 titled as The Branch Manager M/s. Shirt Palace Branch Black Bird Showroom Vs. Chandru H.C. decided on 16.01.2014. A similar question arose for determination before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh in First Appeal No.210 of 2015 decided on 01.09.2015 in case titled as Shoppers Stop and others Vs. Jashan Preet Singh Gill and others.

8.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion and the afore stated case law, we find that charging of taxes on the discounted price by the OP is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.   Hence we direct the OP to refund to the complainant Rs.116.51 (Rs. One hundred sixteen and paise fifty one only) i.e. excess charges of taxes and to pay him a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation. The present complaint stands allowed accordingly.

                The OP is further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decision till actual payment.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard on 07.03.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 16.03.2017

                                              (A.P.S.Rajput)                                                          President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member